EvenmarkDebaten, Debat | It is right and important to electrify Melkøya

In 2016, the climate cake was celebrated in Parliament when the opposition, which at the time consisted of the Labor Party, the Center Party, the SV Party, the MDG, the KrF and Venstre, demanded the electrification of the whole of Utsirahøyden. This means that the fields of Johan Sverdrup, Ivar Assen, Edvard Grieg and Gina Krug would have received energy from Earth.

During 2023, all of these areas will be electrified. But the jubilation has faded. There is no more cake.

The Norwegian oil and gas industry accounts for a quarter of Norway’s emissions. This means that we have to reduce our emissions, and this will be of great importance in achieving the Norwegian and global climate goals. The oil and gas industry has a co-operation through the arena Concraft Set ambitious climate targets. Emissions must be halved by 2030. We know this will be difficult, but at the same time the industry is showing that it is critical. maybe. The electrification of energy from the shore is the measure with the greatest impact. Meanwhile, the public debate about electrification is becoming more urgent each year.

But in 2016, the situation was different. We weren’t about to go into a power deficit and electricity prices were low, so understandably the debate has changed.

However, this does not change the fact that electrification is the most important measure to reduce emissions from oil and gas production. The industry is very clear that the entire rack should not be electrified and that each project is evaluated separately for costs, profitability and energy access.

When the government decided to approve the future Snohvet project (the electrification of Melkoya) and at the same time launch a major energy and industrial boost for Finnmark, the discussion became, if possible, more demanding. There are still dilemmas and difficult discussions, but here we must work together to find solutions, because the decision was important and correct.

The answer has to be more renewable energy

To get in first thing first. Melkøya is the largest industrial workplace in Northern Norway. The electrification of Melkøya will be important for securing existing and new jobs in Hammerfest and in Finnmark and Northern Norway in general.

Today, northern Norway has an energy surplus, and it also gets energy from northern Sweden. It has helped keep electricity prices low in the north, even at a time of energy crisis in the rest of Europe. But that could change in a few years, completely independent of the electrification of Melkoya. The Swedes are planning several energy-intensive projects in the North, which together they will be capable of You need 85 terawatt hours of electricity. More than half of what all of Norway uses in one year. This means that northern Norway will probably not be able to import electricity from Sweden when needed.

At the same time, the electrification of Melkøya will contribute to the construction of a new cable network in Finnmark, which is also essential if the new industry is to establish itself and have access to electricity. Norway’s industrial adventure has never been a zero-sum game in which municipalities and local politicians have to argue over who deserves power, industry and jobs. Energy production has increased with the emergence of a new industry.

Our industry wants to participate in this increase in energy by investing in offshore wind energy. But if offshore wind is to play a greater role in electrifying the continental shelf, we will have to build massive offshore wind farms much faster than is planned today.

global climate impact

Some people then believe that replacing gas use with renewable electricity has no impact on the global climate and that it only shifts emissions.

But in the same way that it has an effect when you replace a gasoline-powered car with an electric car, it has an effect when you replace fossil energy with renewable energy, also in the oil and gas industry. the Documented topic Earlier this year.

The theme is that electricity here at home will provide a net reduction in emissions globally, in part because of the greater likelihood of quotas being eliminated in the European quota system. The quota system is designed so that you have to buy quotas if you emit carbon dioxide. Each year, the number of classes available becomes fewer, and the price of classes becomes more expensive. When rations are expensive, it is more profitable to take climate action than to pollute. In addition, Norway’s oil and gas industry charges a high carbon dioxide tax, which makes climate measures more profitable.

After the recent quota reform, projections are that the number of quotas may drop to zero by 2040. By then, all industries must find solutions on how to remove their emissions, because then there will be no more quotas. To buy. So, it is strange that someone would think that implementing climate measures in Norway has no effect when we are part of the European quota system, which does.

alternatives to electricity

Parliament has asked the government to conduct a separate assessment of Melkoya’s carbon capture and storage, rather than electrification. Some think it will be cheaper than Equinor estimated. Others argue that it is a better solution not to capture the energy surplus in the north, which in turn will lead to higher electricity prices in northern Norway.

Over several years, Equinor has studied various solutions to reduce emissions from Melkøya, and has come to the conclusion that CCS is too expensive. Onshore electricity will cost around NOK 1,700 per ton of reduced emissions, so it is profitable for both business and society, as Politicians have decided That the total price of CO2 should be increased to NOK 2,000 per tonne of CO2 in 2030.

The cost of a CCS solution is estimated at NOK 4,000 to 6,500 per tonne of CO2, which is The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate in its assessment of the government supports. So it is not a profitable alternative. Then some think that only Equinor should pay for it itself. The challenge is that taxpayers will ultimately bear the additional cost of the oil tax system. Because if oil and gas companies make unprofitable investments, there will be less profit to be taxed on, which in turn leads to less money for the state, you and me.

No one in Parliament was celebrating with cake when the royal decision was made. it is a pity. Because it is the right decision. If we are to secure enough energy to move forward while achieving climate goals, we need courageous politicians who dare to make unpopular choices and engage in difficult debates in the short term. In the long run, we will all benefit from it.